How many McCain voters went libertarian in 2012?
The irony is that at least at first glance, the Romney-Ryan ticket would appear more appealing to libertarian-leaning voters than McCain-Palin: no author of a restrictive campaign-finance law atop the ticket, a more sustained focus on cutting government, a nominee who opposed the bailout of General Motors (and paid a dear price for that stand in key states) and certainly a less interventionist tone than McCain offered in 2012.
This is the sort of time where someone traditionally offers a “How the GOP Can Win Back the Libertarians” op-ed. (Note that the popular vote margin for Obama was 3.69 million, so the Libertarian vote did not make up the difference, just about a third of it.) But I suspect that if you voted Libertarian this cycle, you’re a pretty hard-core Libertarian, and unlikely to be won over by any half-measures the GOP might offer in the near future.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Fair question but the reality is McCain and Romney weren’t up against each other. Once again these fools are under the “lesser or two evils” view. Many individuals that lean conservative/libertarian aren’t blind partisans. The fact is, McCain an Romney are both big government establishment GOPers. Romney was the virtual author of the mandate within government forced healthcare. And both McCain and Romney support endless international interventions and laws such as the NDAA, as well as SOPA/PIPA.
MoreLiberty on November 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Actually,
I voted third party in 2008 because
A) Obama didn’t seem that dangerous but unknown
and
B) McCain…do I need to say more?
I voted Romney this time because
A) Obama IS that dangerous
and
B) Romney was probably going to do a decent job
I would like to actually vote FOR a candidate one time in my life.
ProfShadow on November 19, 2012 at 2:24 PM
17.
portlandon on November 19, 2012 at 2:29 PM
42! Nope, that’s not it.
Rocks on November 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Well,
…in 2008, I voted FOR Sarah Palin and AGAINST Barack Obama
…in 2012, I voted AGAINST Barack Obama and FOR Mitt Romney
I mulled over voting for Gary Johnson since Washington state was going for Obama regardless of my vote, but I decided that if I was gonna be a horrible racist for not voting to re-elect the EMPEROR GOD-KING, damnit, I was gonna earn that distinction!
Jeddite on November 19, 2012 at 2:37 PM
Libertarians are and will always be an embarrassment. Bottom line is Romney under performed McCain in OH and Miami Dade in FL by a lot. If he did as well in Miami Dade as McCain did, he would have won FL. In OH he lost working class whites in key counties.
Yes Romney got more votes in blue states then McCain big whoop. He lost voters were they mattered most in swing states.
Raquel Pinkbullet on November 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Yeah. The headline reads pretty funny, as if the number of comments is in answer to the question.
TexasDan on November 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Add that to the 3 million Republicans who voted for McCain but not Romney, and there you have it. Romney had a lot of enthusiasm from most of the GOP, but there were too many dead-enders sitting at home mumbling about Romney- Care, Mormonism etc., while congratulating themselves for their ideological purity. And now they’ve got what they wanted I guess, and I hope it will be worth all the misery coming our way.
RadClown on November 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM
How many McCain voters went libertarian in 2012?
I don’t know, I can’t count that high either….
ToddPA on November 19, 2012 at 3:02 PM
Mean while, we have “conservatives” voting to raise taxes, raise the debt ceiling, voting for bailouts such as TARP, voting to strip you of your Constitutional rights via the NDAA, voted for crotch grabbers at TSA,….
Ya…those that support individual liberty and fiscal responsibility are real “embarrassments.”
MoreLiberty on November 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM
Should be pretty easy to figure out the “hard core” libertarians. See how many votes the Libertarian Party candidate got in 2008 vs 2012. Looks to me like a LOT more in 2012. They came from someplace. My guess is they are mostly independents who usually vote R but voted for Johnson this time. He isn’t “libertarian”, he is a Republican who dropped out early from the Republican primaries before he could be declared a “sore loser” and signed up with the LP.
crosspatch on November 19, 2012 at 3:08 PM
I think you’re both using dated numbers. Romney got more total votes in the swing states than both McCain AND Bush in ’04, and outperformed both in FL, VA, CO, and NV: http://www.policymic.com/articles/19101/popular-vote-2012-romney-actually-got-more-votes-than-bush-in-2004-and-still-lost
He lagged in OH, where Obama did a number on him with the auto bailout garbage, but we’re not talking about a huge margin overall. Doesn’t matter, cause he still lost, but the bottom line is Obama got his voters out. And, since there are more Dems than Reps, we lose if they come out in large enough numbers.
changer1701 on November 19, 2012 at 3:12 PM
Libertarians should attempt to take over the GOP. Even if they didn’t succeed, they’d move the party in the right direction, and get more libertarian policies enacted.
hawksruleva on November 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM
As opposed to who? The social cons who want to drag us into a debate about forcible rape? Or “compassionate conservatives” who want to expand entitlements? or neocons who use their wilsonian foreign policy to try to force FREEDOM on people?
I think the so cons and neo cons are the ones dragging down the party, not the libertarians.
Oh, and this was the last time I vote for an R in a presidential election. Done with it.
Timin203 on November 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM
Will never happen. Neo cons run the party, social cons make up the loud / voting part of the base. They will run this party and country in to the ground shouting about democracy in the middle east and rape while our government grows by leaps and bounds and our debt overwhelms us.
Timin203 on November 19, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Thanks for linking that excellent article. I’ve been yelling for WEEKS that the problem wasn’t getting out the base. Theoretically that may have been the difference in a few battleground states, but that assumes there was more base to get out. Nationally though, no, it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Also, this demonstrates why we need to go after blue states, even if we don’t expect to win them. When Republican voters in these states give up, it not only hurts our national numbers, but also hurts the party in those states.
In 2004, Bush did campaign some in California. He didn’t really expect to win, but they thought they might be able to get it close. That probably really helped the state party that year.
WolvenOne on November 19, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Well, I’ll admit to thinking early on the base stayed home, given the early numbers, but clearly that wasn’t the issue overall.
I agree.
changer1701 on November 19, 2012 at 4:24 PM
How many Bush voters voted Libertarian in 2008?
Valiant on November 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM
As for libertarians, “taking over,” well, overall I agree with that, but I also think they should be prepared to settle for mere, *greater influence.*
The problem is that, in a country the size of America you’re never going to get half of the American people to fully agree on political policy. That wouldn’t matter in system with numerous parties, but two party systems necessitate that both parties be relatively big tent.
That doesn’t mean the Republican party cannot and shouldn’t become more Libertarian, but it’s unlikely to become a perfect mirror on the libertarian party.
I think maybe the goal should be to transform the GOP into, Libertarian Lite. All the freedom, half the calories.
WolvenOne on November 19, 2012 at 4:37 PM